3 ms·

>FSF's definition of freedom still stems from a time where everybody being a programmer was seen as a realistic and achievable goal. The FSF does not believe t

>FSF's definition of freedom still stems from a time where everybody being a programmer was seen as a realistic and achievable goal. The FSF does not believe that everyone should be a programmer. Much like freedom of the press matters for those that aren't journalists, freedom of the software matters for those that aren't programmers. I care about the right to repair even though I'm not a car mechanic. >The actual situation is that we have two groups that care about different things: Users and developers This is a very broad and inaccurate generalization. Even as someone that identifies as a "developer", I'm often just a user. Sometimes the "user" ends up hacking on something, perhaps not even really knowing that they did. It's a spectrum, and it wouldn't seem like such a dichotomy if more software was actually written that encouraged its users to explore its source code and provided ways to extend it. The tech industry reinforces the "user and developer" separation and I think that's a real shame.

toyg 10y ago
> The tech industry reinforces the "user and developer" separation and I think that's a real shame. It's also a losing strategy, which is why concepts like dogfooding and support duties exist. Developers must be users at times, and users have a lot to gain from occasionally being developers (hence all the brouhaha about "learning to code" and so on). Seeing the world in terms of users and developers is a throwback to 1970s waterfall cathedrals, something the Free Software movement is quite clearly set against.
ethbro 10y ago
I think in practice it's a user / tinkerer / developer trichotomy. Or to put it another way blind user / configuring user / developer. With the ability to take a change someone else has made and apply it to something you purchased (e.g. Cyanogenmod) being exercised far more frequently than individual development.
cwyers 10y ago
Sure, it's a spectrum. But it's a very lopsided one -- there's a huge mass of people over at the "100% user" side of the spectrum, and a long, thin tail out towards developer.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  But even those "100% users" will happily task third parties with improving their tools. "Freedom to tinker" is also important because without it, you don't have third parties that can help you. Your friend won't be able to do it, and there will be no small repair shop down the corner of the road, etc.

toyg 10y ago

> The tech industry reinforces the "user and developer" separation and I think that's a real shame. It's also a losing strategy, which is why concepts like dogfooding and support duties exist. Developers must be users at times, and users have a lot to gain from occasionally being developers (hence all the brouhaha about "learning to code" and so on). Seeing the world in terms of users and developers is a throwback to 1970s waterfall cathedrals, something the Free Software movement is quite clearly set against.

ethbro 10y ago

I think in practice it's a user / tinkerer / developer trichotomy. Or to put it another way blind user / configuring user / developer. With the ability to take a change someone else has made and apply it to something you purchased (e.g. Cyanogenmod) being exercised far more frequently than individual development.

cwyers 10y ago

Sure, it's a spectrum. But it's a very lopsided one -- there's a huge mass of people over at the "100% user" side of the spectrum, and a long, thin tail out towards developer.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
But even those "100% users" will happily task third parties with improving their tools. "Freedom to tinker" is also important because without it, you don't have third parties that can help you. Your friend won't be able to do it, and there will be no small repair shop down the corner of the road, etc.